Many of the environmental and agricultural special interests and advocates who supported corn ethanol and the development of other annual-crop-ethanol forgot to carefully examine the externalities of their idealism and/or greed. They seem to be always invoking the veil of "scientific truth." Well here is some scientific truth for all to carefully examine. Maybe this scientific truth will set them free and teach all an important intellectual lesson. Scientific "truth" is dynamic, not static, or based upon political and/or economic expediency!
Science 17 July 2009:ol. 325. no. 5938, pp. 270 - 271DOI: 10.1126/science.1177970
Policy Forum
http://www.sciencemag.org/current.dtl for the full article
Energy: Abstract
Beneficial Biofuels—The Food, Energy, and Environment Trilemma
David Tilman,1,* Robert Socolow,2 Jonathan A. Foley,3 Jason Hill,3 Eric Larson,4 Lee Lynd,5 Stephen Pacala,6 John Reilly,7 Tim Searchinger,8 Chris Somerville,9 Robert Williams4
1 Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 55108, USA.2 Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544, USA.3 Institute on the Environment, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 55108, USA.4 Princeton Environmental Institute, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544, USA.5 Thayer School of Engineering, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH 03755, USA.6 Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544, USA.7 Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research, MIT, Cambridge, MA 02142, USA.8 Woodrow Wilson School, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544, USA.9 Energy Biosciences Institute, University of California Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA.
* To whom correspondence should be addressed: tilman@umn.edu
Recent analyses of the energy and greenhouse-gas performance of alternative biofuels have ignited a controversy that may be best resolved by applying two simple principles. In a world seeking solutions to its energy, environmental, and food challenges, society cannot afford to miss out on the global greenhouse-gas emission reductions and the local environmental and societal benefits when biofuels are done right. However, society also cannot accept the undesirable impacts of biofuels done wrong.
Biofuels done right can be produced in substantial quantities (1). However, they must be derived from feedstocks produced with much lower life-cycle greenhouse-gas emissions than traditional fossil fuels and with little or no competition with food production (see figure, below). Feedstocks in this category include, but may not be limited to, the following:
The best biofuels. The search for beneficial biofuels should focus on sustainable biomass feedstocks that neither compete with food crops nor directly or indirectly cause land-clearing and that offer advantages in reducing greenhouse-gas emissions. Perennials grown on degraded formerly agricultural land, municipal and industrial sold waste, crop and forestry residues, and double or mixed crops offer great potential. The best biofuels make good substitutes for fossil energy. A recent analysis suggests that more than 500 million tons of such feedstocks could be produced annually in the United States (1).
CREDIT: M. TWOMBLY/SCIENCE
Showing posts with label Ethanol. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ethanol. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Thursday, June 11, 2009
The consumer deserves the whole truth on corn ethanol
Billy DeFrain’s outrageously inaccurate press release on behalf of the Nebraska Ethanol Board released June 10 is just another example of the corn-lobby-governmental disinformation campaign regarding the consumer costs of ethanol-diluted gasoline.
The corn ethanol advocates argue that the two most important points in favor of corn ethanol production are (1) energy independence and (2) fuel switching. Supply and demand microeconomics tell us that adding a new energy supply should reduce prices consumers pay at the pump. A look at the facts reveals something else.
First, it is imperative to understand that if we use corn to produce ethanol, less of it is available to feed the animals that we like to eat which increases pork, beef and chicken prices. Consumers do not win, farmers and ethanol producers do. While that may play in some parts of mid-America, it doesn’t reduce consumer cost, net. And net is what matters to those of us who buy food for our families and gasoline to get them.
Second, the North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service periodical AG-687, hardly the bastion of “big oil”, states, “A gallon of ethanol does not contain as much energy as a gallon of gasoline.” This means that ethanol is not as energy productive as unleaded gasoline (76,000 BTUs per gallon versus 114,000 BTUs).
According to Mr.DeFrain, public information officer for the Nebraska Ethanol Board, in the aforementioned press release, June 10, “If all the fuel sold in Nebraska in the past five years was E-85, Nebraskans would have saved $2.6 billion.” This outrageous, fantasy proclamation, flies in the face of scientific fact: E-85 causes a noticeable drop in fuel economy, meaning that the consumer’s vehicles must use more of it to travel the same distance than when burning 100% unleaded gasoline. The North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service estimates this drop to be in the 20-30% range, “depending upon the vehicle make and model.” Again, this is the result of the fact that E-85 contains 28% less energy than a gallon of regular gasoline.
A comparison of unleaded gasoline versus E-85 fuel economy values for all flex-fueled vehicles can be found at: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/. Check my argument out for yourself. I suspect that you will find the data enlightening.
In conclusion, our economy is suffering because too many of us trusted what we were told about mortgages for our homes from the vested interests who financially benefited from the hype and the government officials, at all levels, touting “affordable housing for all.” Now, the Nebraska Corn Ethanol Board and others would have us believe that corn ethanol will provide affordable energy for all. I, for one, will not be fooled twice!!!
The corn ethanol advocates argue that the two most important points in favor of corn ethanol production are (1) energy independence and (2) fuel switching. Supply and demand microeconomics tell us that adding a new energy supply should reduce prices consumers pay at the pump. A look at the facts reveals something else.
First, it is imperative to understand that if we use corn to produce ethanol, less of it is available to feed the animals that we like to eat which increases pork, beef and chicken prices. Consumers do not win, farmers and ethanol producers do. While that may play in some parts of mid-America, it doesn’t reduce consumer cost, net. And net is what matters to those of us who buy food for our families and gasoline to get them.
Second, the North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service periodical AG-687, hardly the bastion of “big oil”, states, “A gallon of ethanol does not contain as much energy as a gallon of gasoline.” This means that ethanol is not as energy productive as unleaded gasoline (76,000 BTUs per gallon versus 114,000 BTUs).
According to Mr.DeFrain, public information officer for the Nebraska Ethanol Board, in the aforementioned press release, June 10, “If all the fuel sold in Nebraska in the past five years was E-85, Nebraskans would have saved $2.6 billion.” This outrageous, fantasy proclamation, flies in the face of scientific fact: E-85 causes a noticeable drop in fuel economy, meaning that the consumer’s vehicles must use more of it to travel the same distance than when burning 100% unleaded gasoline. The North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service estimates this drop to be in the 20-30% range, “depending upon the vehicle make and model.” Again, this is the result of the fact that E-85 contains 28% less energy than a gallon of regular gasoline.
A comparison of unleaded gasoline versus E-85 fuel economy values for all flex-fueled vehicles can be found at: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/. Check my argument out for yourself. I suspect that you will find the data enlightening.
In conclusion, our economy is suffering because too many of us trusted what we were told about mortgages for our homes from the vested interests who financially benefited from the hype and the government officials, at all levels, touting “affordable housing for all.” Now, the Nebraska Corn Ethanol Board and others would have us believe that corn ethanol will provide affordable energy for all. I, for one, will not be fooled twice!!!
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Supporters of Corn-Ethanol Reeling...
When it comes to the core of environmentalism, there are no sacred cows. After years of support for corn ethanol, many environmentalists have "turned tail" on the corn farmers over land-use impacts.
Supporters of corn-based ethanol are reeling in response to federal climate change legislation that will punish carbon emitters, including the agriculture industry. They worry that policies like cap and trade and low carbon fuel will destroy their tenuous, taxpayer-subsidized market and lead to the corn ethanol industry being permanently put out to pasture. Most scientific data suggest they are well justified in their concerns... There are many outstanding, credible, scientific studies of the benefits of cellulosic ethanol over corn ethanol.
Here are a few more high-quality scientific studies:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/319/5867/1238
Originally published in Science Express on 7 February 2008 Science 29 February 2008: Vol. 319. no. 5867, pp. 1238 - 1240 DOI: 10.1126/science.1151861 Reports Use of U.S. Croplands for Biofuels Increases Greenhouse Gases Through Emissions from Land-Use Change Timothy Searchinger, 1* Ralph Heimlich, 2 R. A. Houghton, 3 Fengxia Dong, 4 Amani Elobeid, 4 Jacinto Fabiosa, 4 Simla Tokgoz, 4 Dermot Hayes, 4 Tun-Hsiang Yu 4
Most prior studies have found that substituting biofuels for gasoline will reduce greenhouse gases because biofuels sequester carbon through the growth of the feedstock. These analyses have failed to count the carbon emissions that occur as farmers worldwide respond to higher prices and convert forest and grassland to new cropland to replace the grain (or cropland) diverted to biofuels. By using a worldwide agricultural model to estimate emissions from land-use change, we found that corn-based ethanol, instead of producing a 20% savings, nearly doubles greenhouse emissions over 30 years and increases greenhouse gases for 167 years. Biofuels from switchgrass, if grown on U.S. corn lands, increase emissions by 50%. This result raises concerns about large biofuel mandates and highlights the value of using waste products.
1 Woodrow Wilson School, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544, USA. German Marshall Fund of the United States, Washington, DC 20009, USA. Georgetown Environmental Law and Policy Institute, Washington, DC 20001, USA.2 Agricultural Conservation Economics, Laurel, MD 20723, USA.3 Woods Hole Research Center, Falmouth, MA 02540–1644, USA.4 Center for Agricultural and Rural Development, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011, USA.
Corn-Based Ethanol Flunks Key Test
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/324/5927/587.pdf
Biofuel Researchers Prepare To Reap a New Harvest
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/315/5818/1488.pdf
Use of U.S. Croplands for Biofuels Increases Greenhouse Gases Through Emissions from Land-Use Change
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/319/5867/1238.pdf
On a macro level, the genesis of this government subsidy and preferential treatment program is but one of multi-thousands of examples of how government interference in the private market place has externalities rarely thought through at the time of group-euphoria and enactment. Regardless of what the lead California and Massachusetts politicians and their following say, cap and trade will have huge financial impacts on consumers and producers.
Your thoughtful, reasoned reactions are always welcome.
Supporters of corn-based ethanol are reeling in response to federal climate change legislation that will punish carbon emitters, including the agriculture industry. They worry that policies like cap and trade and low carbon fuel will destroy their tenuous, taxpayer-subsidized market and lead to the corn ethanol industry being permanently put out to pasture. Most scientific data suggest they are well justified in their concerns... There are many outstanding, credible, scientific studies of the benefits of cellulosic ethanol over corn ethanol.
Here are a few more high-quality scientific studies:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/319/5867/1238
Originally published in Science Express on 7 February 2008 Science 29 February 2008: Vol. 319. no. 5867, pp. 1238 - 1240 DOI: 10.1126/science.1151861 Reports Use of U.S. Croplands for Biofuels Increases Greenhouse Gases Through Emissions from Land-Use Change Timothy Searchinger, 1* Ralph Heimlich, 2 R. A. Houghton, 3 Fengxia Dong, 4 Amani Elobeid, 4 Jacinto Fabiosa, 4 Simla Tokgoz, 4 Dermot Hayes, 4 Tun-Hsiang Yu 4
Most prior studies have found that substituting biofuels for gasoline will reduce greenhouse gases because biofuels sequester carbon through the growth of the feedstock. These analyses have failed to count the carbon emissions that occur as farmers worldwide respond to higher prices and convert forest and grassland to new cropland to replace the grain (or cropland) diverted to biofuels. By using a worldwide agricultural model to estimate emissions from land-use change, we found that corn-based ethanol, instead of producing a 20% savings, nearly doubles greenhouse emissions over 30 years and increases greenhouse gases for 167 years. Biofuels from switchgrass, if grown on U.S. corn lands, increase emissions by 50%. This result raises concerns about large biofuel mandates and highlights the value of using waste products.
1 Woodrow Wilson School, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544, USA. German Marshall Fund of the United States, Washington, DC 20009, USA. Georgetown Environmental Law and Policy Institute, Washington, DC 20001, USA.2 Agricultural Conservation Economics, Laurel, MD 20723, USA.3 Woods Hole Research Center, Falmouth, MA 02540–1644, USA.4 Center for Agricultural and Rural Development, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011, USA.
Corn-Based Ethanol Flunks Key Test
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/324/5927/587.pdf
Biofuel Researchers Prepare To Reap a New Harvest
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/315/5818/1488.pdf
Use of U.S. Croplands for Biofuels Increases Greenhouse Gases Through Emissions from Land-Use Change
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/319/5867/1238.pdf
On a macro level, the genesis of this government subsidy and preferential treatment program is but one of multi-thousands of examples of how government interference in the private market place has externalities rarely thought through at the time of group-euphoria and enactment. Regardless of what the lead California and Massachusetts politicians and their following say, cap and trade will have huge financial impacts on consumers and producers.
Your thoughtful, reasoned reactions are always welcome.
Friday, April 10, 2009
Corn Ethanol's Unforeseen Externalities: Land Use Impacts
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/100xx/doc10057/04-08-Ethanol.pdf
A new Congressional Budget Office report released April 9th says the long-term implications of ethanol are not certain in part because of uncertainties regarding land-use impacts and technology breakthroughs in cellulosic biofuels. Both the University of California at Davis and Berkeley researchers concluded the same findings over a year ago. The report was requested by Congressmen concerned that increased demand for corn-based ethanol could drive up food prices.
“If increases in the production of ethanol led to a large amount of forests or grasslands being converted into new cropland, those changes in land use could more than offset any reduction in greenhouse gas emissions--because forests and grasslands naturally absorb more carbon from the atmosphere than cropland absorbs,” the CBO study says. Cellulosic ethanol could reduce emissions from the transportation sector about 6 percent, but the study notes that the technology needed to produce cellulosic ethanol is not commercially available and adds that the reductions “would be realized only if cellulosic ethanol could be produced on a large scale and if the effects of changes in land use did not offset the reduction that producing, distributing, and consuming ethanol could make in greenhouse gas emissions.” According to the study, use of corn for fuel would also add 15% to the price of food, higher in developing countries than developed countries.
Once again, it is imperative that we understand the consequences of "good ideas" before we implement them. Once an interest group forms around government money it is almost impossible to take them off the dole.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/100xx/doc10057/04-08-Ethanol.pdf
A new Congressional Budget Office report released April 9th says the long-term implications of ethanol are not certain in part because of uncertainties regarding land-use impacts and technology breakthroughs in cellulosic biofuels. Both the University of California at Davis and Berkeley researchers concluded the same findings over a year ago. The report was requested by Congressmen concerned that increased demand for corn-based ethanol could drive up food prices.
“If increases in the production of ethanol led to a large amount of forests or grasslands being converted into new cropland, those changes in land use could more than offset any reduction in greenhouse gas emissions--because forests and grasslands naturally absorb more carbon from the atmosphere than cropland absorbs,” the CBO study says. Cellulosic ethanol could reduce emissions from the transportation sector about 6 percent, but the study notes that the technology needed to produce cellulosic ethanol is not commercially available and adds that the reductions “would be realized only if cellulosic ethanol could be produced on a large scale and if the effects of changes in land use did not offset the reduction that producing, distributing, and consuming ethanol could make in greenhouse gas emissions.” According to the study, use of corn for fuel would also add 15% to the price of food, higher in developing countries than developed countries.
Once again, it is imperative that we understand the consequences of "good ideas" before we implement them. Once an interest group forms around government money it is almost impossible to take them off the dole.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
